ghl_media_bulk_update_files

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare non-destructive and idempotent. The description adds that it updates metadata or status, providing some context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The mention of 'status' is vague and not reflected in the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise with three lines covering purpose, action, and endpoint. No redundant information. The endpoint line, while technical, is not wasteful. Could be slightly more structured but overall efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (nested body, 3 required subfields, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It should mention the required fields (altId, altType, filesToBeUpdated) and what can be updated (e.g., name). The reference to 'status' is misleading. Schema descriptions fill some gap, but the tool description itself lacks completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minor value by saying 'metadata or status', but the schema only shows 'name' as an updatable field (no 'status'). This slight inaccuracy reduces the benefit. The description does not elaborate on the meaning or constraints of parameters beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it updates multiple files/folders in bulk. The verb 'Bulk Update' and the phrase 'Updates metadata or status of multiple files and folders' precisely define the action. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ghl_media_update_file (single file) or ghl_media_bulk_delete_files.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for bulk updates but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or comparisons with sibling tools like ghl_media_update_file for single updates.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.